Republicans turned on Bush the second Obama took office. As of January 21st, 2009, I haven’t met a single Republican who supported him. So good luck trying that “gotcha” on them. I guess all the Republican voters from 2000 and 2004 have died. :dubious:
One is a much better speaker than the other, with more interesting things to say.
Not everybody is ready for GeeDubya’s “edgy” humor. Too hip for the room.
Do you honestly believe that President Clinton makes a half a million dollars per hour because he’s articulate and interesting?
Well they might not support Bush but I have ran into plenty of the “Obama is a failure types” that insisted that the situation on the ground in Iraq when Obama walked into office is completely irrelevant to Obama’s lack results and the creation of ISIS. So they want to have the magical ability to trash Bush while not accepting that any of his actions had lasting consequences for the middle east.
I fully expect those same types to blame every failure of Trump on Obama.
No, I believe he is bribed to use his massive power over the Republican Party.
I remember when Bill Clinton gave the keynote address at a Microsoft convention I attended. He was neither interesting nor articulate and thinking about how much of our registration fee went to pay him is disappointing.
My experience at a Dell conference was different than yours. I thought that President Clinton was interesting and well-spoken. He got a little huffy when answering a tongue-in-cheek question about Al Gore inventing the internet but other than that, he was fine. Overpaid to be sure but they all are IMHO.
The next year, to balance things out I guess, they had Bill O’Reilly. He was interesting as well.
Hmmm, I wonder…
Nah… I find it much more likely that Hillary Clinton, a person running for president of the US and thus under under intense and media scrutiny, somebody that has had the objective lens of the media shoved into the most personal aspects of their lives for over 20 years, was actually running a completely illegal scheme to use charitable contributions to fund their presidential campaign. Yah, that makes more sense.
Yes, and the Donald was making 1.5 million, so what?
And Bruce Springsteen tickets cost more than Meatloaf tickets. Your point?
It’s like that old joke (paraphrased because I can’t remember enough of the actual quote to search), “Nickleback has sold 23 million albums in the US…name one person you know that has one. See? No one.”
Shhh. They haven’t caught on yet.
Which is why, clearly, neither Richard Nixon nor Anthony Weiner should be suspected of the things they were accused of.
As I asked elucidator, why do you think that the Clintons decided that charity is no longer a worthwhile task right at this moment in time?
Is that really what they decided, though?
As I understand the reporting, the Clinton Global Initiative is closing shop, but the Clinton Foundation is continuing its charitable work. Do you have a cite that the foundation itself is closing?
Isn’t this whole thing about insisting on facts just another way to limit free speech?
Maybe Hillary and Bill are clearing the way for another run at the Whitehouse? Or maybe Mayor of NYC?
Hillary for 2020. Woohoo!
Exactly. It’s almost like this thing wasn’t a charity.
For a while, I worked for a foundation. Talk about “right livelihood”, giving away dead rich folks money! That’s where I first encountered the least exciting publication in Known Space, the Chronicle of Philanthropy. That’s where you get the hottest gossip and the juciest stories about the world of charitable foundations, yowzah! Look, your eyes have already glazed over, and you’ve never even seen one!
The IRS is supposed to be the watchdog, but really, its them. And they have consistently found the Clinton Foundation to be grade-A, pure D kosher. I’ll take their word for it, because that way, I won’t have to read it. Ever again.
This wasn’t the Clinton Foundation. That still exists.